Do Media Companies Have Copyright Wrong? 259
Microsift asks: "I own the Beatles White Album on vinyl, but I don't have a record player. If I want to buy the CD new, I have to pay full price. This begs the question, when I buy an album, what am I buying. I don't own the music, I just own the right to listen to it, so why do I have to pay the same for the CD as someone who doesn't own the album? As media become obsolete (Records, videotapes, CDs?). Media companies receive a windfall from people double paying for access to the company's intellectual property. Of course, obsolete media is not the only issue, there are several movies that have been released in multiple versions (Director's Cuts and the like). Someone who bought the first version would have to pay for the original content twice to get access to the added content in the newer version (which is clearly wrong). Compare this to a software model. If you own a version of Microsoft Office, Microsoft will sell you a copy of the latest version for a reduced price. So who has it right us or them?"
Re:This is just silly. (Score:1)
Re:I think the main reason you can't upgrade... (Score:1)
Re: Reduced cost (Score:1)
-TG
Current system is right legally and morally (Score:1)
Vinyl and cd representations of the same song are NOT the same item. If they were, people who owned the cd version of the song would never need/want to purchase the lp version. That is obviously not the case. Lps and cds are NOT interchangeable.
The only way by which the company is charging twice for the same product is if they actually ARE the same product and completely interchangeable. If this were the case, a consumer purchasing two of the same product is just being dumb and is not being wronged by the media companies.
One may say, "but they're charging for PART of the same product twice." That may be true, but it is entirely within their right to do so. If a person owns a paperback version of a book and they want to buy the hardcover, they aren't legally entitled to only pay for the increased cost of the cover.
There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with a company charging a certain amount of money for a product. If you disagree with that statement, I advise moving to North Korea, Cuba, or some other nation that holds free markets in a high regard. Likewise, there is NO legal reason that a company has to offer a discount on product A because you own product B. If you bought a CD from company A, company A owes you nothing. You have a CD and that's it. Deal with it.
As stated in numerous posts so far, software companies offer discounts on upgrades for purely monetary reasons. It is not related in any fashion to fair use laws allowing a end user to make backup copies of software. It is a patently false argument to say that because I can legally back up my music, I am entitled to discounts when I buy vinyl. There is NO logical progression from statement A to statement B. Absoultely none.
A better comparison than software in my opinion would be a comparison to books. Hardback and paperback versions all contain the same words, but they are different products. For many older works, there are many different editions, etc... etc..., all with different prices. Are they the same product? If you buy one does that mean that you are entitled to other editions or formats? NO
Also, if this argument were valid, one can reach all kinds of absurd scenarios.
If I buy this paper, I should get tommorrow's paper at a discount.
If I buy this hardcover book, I should get the book on tape and the paperback for a super low fee.
one can go on forever..................
It would be NICE for me as a consumer if certain things worked that way, but I am certainly not ENTITLED to it.
And on a more general note, I believe that there is a dangerous proliferation of perceived rights in our current society. For example, people are falsely seeing software and music as rights. People feel they are ENTITLED to be GIVEN software and music by OTHER people.
I at least live in a free society where people are able to choose what to do with their time, what to produce, what to buy, and how to live, and I greatly fear attacks on this freedom masquerading as supporters of it.
Agreed Re:It's in the cost of [re]production... (Score:1)
Turning analog tape - especially *old* tape - into a good sounding CD isn't as simple as ripping a CD onto your hard drive.
Media wears out (Score:1)
Depends on the context of the situation. (Score:1)
An example re software: I work for MontaVista Software, a company which supports linux on embedded platforms. Our customers pay us to make linux (and software for it) work on their boards/chips/whatnot, and the business is quite profitable. After we've done a port, though, anyone can make as many copies of our work as they want, resell it, etc. and we have no additional control. This works well for us. The question is whether it works for music.
The closest analogy I can think of in the music world is being paid not per copy of music performed, but per actual performance. Artists would be rewarded for live performances and individual recording sessions, but they wouldn't recieve royalties off the recording sessions, resampling, etc. On the other hand, the record companies wouldn't have monopolies on the sale of the music -- they'd simply need to be able compete on the basis of price, efficient distribution channels, etc.
It's an interesting idea; I'm not so sure it wouldn't work, though I wouldn't place a bet either way.
Re:Why buy it twice? (Score:1)
When you buy a song, you're buying the right to use a piece of intellectual property. You also get some media. If the media is totalled or stolen, you need to pay to replace it -- but you still have the right to use the property.
Having the right-to-use a piece of property twice doesn't do you any good unless you can legally transfer it. If when I buy my replacement copy of some CD (which happens to come with a new right-to-use) I can sell my old right-to-use to some other guy so he can legally get the music with Napster, I'd be fine with paying full price.
Otherwise, when I bought the CD the 2nd time I recieved less value than the first -- since the 2nd right-to-use creates no difference in my legal position (no additional rights or responsabilities), I didn't legally recieve the right-to-use I paid for. I only recieved a piece of media, when I paid for both a piece of media and a right-to-use. See the difference?
Re:"begs the question"? (Score:1)
Re:We both have it wrong! (Score:1)
At Best Buy today, I saw a Pocohantas DVD with a $7 discount for anyone who sent in the proof of purchase from their VHS version. (I think the DVD itself was $20.)
It's quite a smart decision on Disney's part. Most people won't by the DVD for something they already have the tape for, but some of those who wouldn't, would feel justified in making a VCD or (once it is possible) making a DVD-R copy.
Re:Exactly (Score:1)
It's really very easy. Just have them bring in their old copy to the store, and trade it in. For $4 and the non-director's cut version, you can walk out of the store with the Director's Cut of whatever movie they just released on DVD.
After that, the store could always resell the pre-watched version at a heavy discount (and marked that it had been used as a trade-in already, of course) to make back any money lost due to the extra effort they'd have to put into such a system.
Wrong. (Score:1)
No, it makes perfect sense in the topic of this discussion: That the majority of the money you pay is for rights to view the music/movie, and that a new medium/version should not cost someone who already owns it the same amount as someone buying for the first time.
This question was to IF they were using a "already-own-then-upgrade" model, then how could you make sure someone owned before they upgraded. That was the question I was answering, not one comparing the finer points of business models.
Even if we weren't talking about this theoretical situation, my proposal does not make "extremely poor business sense" as you say. It makes perfect business sense - people who already own the music/DVD are less likely to buy the new version at the full price. Giving them a trade-in option gives you the following:
1. More money than you would have if they DIDN'T buy the new version. (If you already own the DVD/CD, you're MUCH less likely to pay for it again.)
2. These numbers will result in an increase in sales. Increased sales = higher spot on "top 10" lists. Higher spot = even more sales.
Your argument that selling the upgrade for $4 will result in a loss fails to take these two major factors into account.
Vinyl.... (Score:1)
I know this was a comment in passing...
I really don't see the point of sticking to LPs. I know there are some people that swear by them, but I don't see the point of getting a new LP. For the titles that haven't been properly remastered or never made it to CD, I can see getting an LP. While LPs may have a slightly higher bandwitdh, which degrades slightly after every playback, the dynamic range is quite small comparitively.
I have a small Laserdisc collection, I don't see a need to upgrade some of them, and several others I couldn't yet (Star Wars Trilogy anyone?). There are several cases where the Laserdisc video looks better than the DVD, usually they are the early ones where the producers didn't know how to properly master a DVD.
IMO the media size in both cases is too cumbersone and the player size dictated is too large. They are just formats, and they have been superceeded by newer ones, clinging to a format for the format's sake doesn't seem right to me, especially with newer formats that are much more convenient.
Re:Purchase of media != right to listen (Score:1)
However, you can make copies if you own the original for personal use/back-up.
You're missing the point entirely... (Score:1)
The point of the article is that if the Powers That Be want to move to a licensing model (and they do), it seems fair that we should only have to license a product once. This *is* reasonable, but RIAA et al don't want to be reasonable. They want to limit you as much as possible, and drain as much money from you as possible.
My answer to the poster about his tape is that fair use allows personal copying, so he should feel no remorse about getting an mp3 of a song he already has. It is only questionably legal, but it is spiritually similar to making an archival back up at purchase time. Archival backups are perfectly legal.
In my case, I have no problem burning a copy of a CD that I already own. All too often CD's (even new ones) are improperly pressed and start skipping horribly on me. It's ridiculous that the CD companies' QA isn't better. They are selling inferior goods. But since I've already licensed the music, I just press my *own* damn CD and use that. The music companies don't like it, but it's legal.
--Lenny
Re:Do the record companies have a loophole? (Score:1)
___
Re:Please read!!! (Score:1)
Actually, it is a very interesting discussion, even though it is off topic.
Who would you rather your daughter have her first experiences with: Some horny teenage boy who will do anything he can to get into her pants, or an adult who you know and trust to respect her and not pressure her?
Yeah, some horny 40-year old guy is better... But jokes aside, I have a problem with that statement. Why would an adult be more responsible than a horny teenage boy, as you put it?
I did not choose my sexual orientation, and even though many people say it's a sickness or a disease, it's just as valid as homosexuality, bisexuality, and many other orientations whose members were once persecuted as we are, but are now seen as being normal.
Well, no not really. Homosexuals are not seen as normal, don't kid yourself (no pun intended). Homosexuality *is* perceived as sickness (just ask Dr. Laura).
Anyway, regardless of my and your opinion, I do think it's an interesting discussion and I invite others to join in.
___
Re:Napster is not the same as radio (Score:1)
Napster is more like pirate radio.
I am not judging here, just saying.
Not at all true... (Score:1)
I have made CDR copies of new unplayed vinyl on a Linn turntable running through a DC tube amp to a pro CDR deck all on class A power. A $3500.00 setup, but these CDs sound way better than any that you'd buy in the store. If you are using the line-in on your soundcard to make a CDR from your Fisher-Price recordplayer, of course it will suck. There is way too much noise inside the PC.
Re:I think the main reason you can't upgrade... (Score:1)
It's no surprise that the CD you made sounds different. The fact that it sounds better to you is completely subjective. The fact that you're used to the one you made probably has something to do with it. Someone who was used to the commercial CD would probably think your CD would sound weird and muffled.
If you want people to listen to you... (Score:1)
To beg a question (or issue, etc.) is to avoid addressing it when it should be addressed, or to incorrectly assume the issue to have been properly addressed. For a more authoritative account, you can look up "beg" at Merriam-Webster's online dictionary [m-w.com].
Re:Vinyl (Score:1)
What happens if my backup copy becomes so damaged that it's unsuitable to be a backup anymore? My backup copy is now gone.
Your "backup" copy contains the same songs. What makes your backup copy any different from mine? Both were pressed onto CD's, mine was sourced from vinyl, yours from cd. Same music.
And let's assume I kept my vinyl in perfect condition with no scratches, so my backup copy was on par with a "Cd quality" backup.
What specific laws prevent me from doing this? If my backup copy made from vinyl is going to sound the same as your backup copy made from CD, then where is the logic or law behind this?
I don't actually do this. And my cheapie vinyl would never be flawless enough
Re:I think the main reason you can't upgrade... (Score:1)
Actually usually you can just supply the CD-ROM of the previous version. At least in Office 2000 you can (I'm pretty sure).
Not that it's really relevent, but in fact, I've encountered an Office 2000 Upgrade CD, where when it requests the location of a previous version of office, it will proceed with the install if you provide the location of the CD you're installing from. I don't know if this is the same with all Office 2000 Upgrade CDs, as I've only installed 1.
Re:Purchase of media != right to listen (Score:1)
Re:I think the main reason you can't upgrade... (Score:2)
Regarding the CD issue, this is quite well understood by this point. You might be interested to know that this recent re-release of a bunch of Beatles songs (CD with a big '1' on the cover, naturally not a scrap of material that hasn't been released 6,000 times) obviously made use of _really_ modern technology to the point that it sounds like the CD you made.
To be specific, a lot of these CDs were made off poor masters or treated with markedly inferior 80s/90s era digital processing in the belief that this would make them sound better. That gear was miserable by current standards- 16 bit mix busses, poor understanding of the algorithms, nothing a professional would use in this day and age.
When the sound engineers of the current day got a hold of this stuff (and made this re-release) they did it right- modern 64-bit mix busses, high quality dithering algorithms etc- and I can confirm that their results are quite similar to the original vinyl played over a _good_ system. In particular, the sound was a lot less shrill than most CDs, and the bass was exceptionally good and powerful. Nobody would call it 'muffled', either.
I'd hate for anybody to go off buying this silly rerelease just because I talked about its sonics *g* I think people should _boycott_ the majors. However, I wanted to make the observation because I know lots of people will jump about going 'the CDs are much better sounding!' which is not true. This _recent_ remastering is very good sounding. A lot of the CDs out there are _far_ from that quality level, and in general the vinyl does sound better. This Beatles reissue just happens to do a very nice job of illustrating _how_ the vinyl was sounding better all these years, and gets the 'feel' of the music much better than previous CDs in general.
It's nice that people didn't just sit around assuming CDs were better, because now we can do musical work and have the CDs roughly equivalent to the vinyl- CDs tend to win in noise floor, easy access and pitch stability, vinyl tends to win in warmth, spaciousness, tonality and the ability to convincingly present _loud_ tones, plus the covers are bigger and nicer :) frankly, the CDs used to be _so_ much worse, it's really nice to see them finally coming into their own.
Re:You are mistaking copyrights with EULAs (Score:2)
Sure, something stinks but it's not necessarily the 'licensing' of the music.
As an interesting side note, if the music industry manages to transition to the Internet and have people paying for downloaded music, they will have people literally paying for nothing!
Re:Can you sing or hum a song (Score:2)
Re:Why buy it twice? (Score:2)
When you buy a car, all you get is a car. You don't get a "right to use one vehicle created with this-and-such a patented process" because you don't need a right to use an item created with patents. Similarly, you don't get ANY additional rights to the company's trademarks at all. Car companies don't claim to sell you any rights to use their IP when you buy a car -- but record companies do.
Re:What about your memory? (Score:2)
Re:... (Score:2)
Books and maps and other physical items have always been treated differently than electronic "intellectual property." I can loan a book to a friend. I can write all over that book. I can burn it to ashes if I want. I've bought the book and am entitled to the physical item. They don't claim that I bought a license to read the book. I bought THE BOOK. With CDs and DVDs and other Digital media, they claim that we're just buying the right to listen to the music. They said this because it allowed them to slap all sorts of restrictions on digital media that copyright doesn't normally allow. Now, it seems that it's coming back to bite them in the ass. People don't want them to have their cake and eat it too. My.MP3.com was the first major challenge to their claims. They won that one on a technicality, and there is now a bill in Congress to remedy that situation. People are slowly starting to wake up to the scam that the IP owners are trying to pull.
You missed the point. (Score:2)
The cost of the media itself is about $2 these days, including packaging. Give that about 100% markup and a bit more for distribution costs. That comes to $5 for the media, and about $7-$12 for the right to listen to the contents.
But if you have already paid for the right to listen to the contents on a copy you previously bought, why do you have to pay full price to receive a second copy of the media?
The conclusion that you could draw is that since the second copy that you purchase for yourself costs the same as the first, then the record companies are charging 100% of the price for the media and that the right to listen to it is 0% of the price. Therefore, if I copy the music and give it to someone else, I have cost the music company $0. So if I were to make a copy and distribute it on Napster, the record company would be able to sue me for that $0, and nothing more.
QED.
two answers (Score:2)
the sensible version, to me, is that people should buy the right to experience something. the storage and distribution mechanisms are not relevant. If you lose your copy, or want to upgrade to a better storage medium, then you can do it at cost plus handling, as long as your right-to-experience can be verified. This only really works for digitable media, but old models are perfectly fine for books and vinyl anyway.
probably depends on watermarking, though. uh oh.
the other version - what actually happens - is very simple. whatever they can get away with. You agreed to it when you bought the white album under a license that said you were buying a piece of plastic that happened to have a spiral groove on it.
the record companies have something you want. they didn't assemble it with your happiness in mind and they'll wring out of you whatever they can for as long as you consent. in that it seems to have worked out rather well for them, i'd say that they do have it right, yes.
Re:But... (Score:2)
The bitrate is only 50% higher than a CD's bitrate (1.5Mbit/sec), so don't go creaming in your pants just yet.
The main difference the 1 bit/sample makes in this case is that your bandwidth theoretically stretches to a much higher (and quite ridiculous) 1.2MHz. Of course, the SNR is really, really low at 1.2MHz. For such a system, the effective dynamic range (and SNR) is inversely proportional to the frequency. You'll gain high-end range at the expense of high-end precision and range. Assuming they use something like sigma-delta demodulation to decode this into listenable audio, you also lose dynamic range over most of the listening band due to the concept of "slope overload".
(ObDisclaimer: That is, if I remember my signal processing courses from school correctly. I may program DSPs [ti.com] for a living, but that's because I'm a good coder, not because I was good with DSP theory. Most of what I do is other engineering, not actual signal processing.)
--Joe--
Program Intellivision! [schells.com]
the law. (Score:2)
Additionally, we are not limiting ourselves to descriptions of the law when we broach this topic. Often the law is at profound variance with common sense. At times it is simply wrong. "The law" can even be contradictory, or pending a test case, or waiting to be found (in the US) unconstitutional. Many of us feel that most enforcements of intellectual property that content owners are trying to muster encroach against common sense, normal healthy human behaviour, and the best interests of intellectual and cultural discourse, whatever their legal standing happens to be.
Re:I think the main reason you can't upgrade... (Score:2)
>use record companies in particular are so inefficient, a big chunk of the cost of the CD is in manufacturing and distribution
I believe you are incorrect. The most widely cited figure is $1.00 for pressing and printing a commercial CD in the quantities we are talking about here. This is how BMG and Colombia House can afford the 12 CD's for a penny promotions.
They could charge somewhere in the neighborhood of $5.00 for new media in a case like this and still make money.
Vinyl (Score:2)
Yet another gray area of law
And the player to buy is ... (Score:2)
As for the original question, not until the public starts demanding a LICENSE of rights to enjoy a work instead of a physical artifiact, and fat chance of that ever happening. Music is sold on the premise that the end user knows diddly squat about copyrights, licenses, and the little bastards will give away and sell copies and derivitive works at every opportunity, and must have technological handcuffs placed on each unit to everyone's detriment (which appears to be a valid assumption).
As a matter of fact, the recording industry beginning with Edison was pretty paranoid, restrictive and fascist, obsessed and fearful of losing control. I happen to have a genuine Edison blue amberol cylinder from around 100 years ago that reads:
"This record is sold upon the condition that it shall not be re-sold to or by any unauthorized dealer or used for duplication, and that it shall not be sold, or offered for sale, by the original, or any subsequent purchaser (except by an authorized jobber or factor to an authorized retail dealer) for less than 35 cents in the Untied States, nor in other countries for less than the price given in the current Edison catalogues of the country in which it is sold."
of course that scarecrow of a boilerplate never stopped anyone with the means to dup and distribute their favorite artists work.
Welcome to reality. Its not pretty. (Score:2)
Just develop a taste for life outside the stream and innure yourself to the noise. If you don't spend, its so much easier to tune out the ads. Think of the time you have left to think and enjoy life if you unplug from the acquisition mill.
This is just silly. (Score:2)
When a media company has bought the rights to a piece, they have the right to control every copy of that piece that was not created through fair use.
If they do not want to grant you any discount based on what you have already bought, they do not have to.
The implicit questions in all of these discussions are:
1. Does an artist have a right to control copies of his work?
2. Does an artist have a right to sell right 1. to annother party?
If you believe that both of these are natural rights, (and I do) then it follows that artists, and by extention the companies that purchase their copyrights, can place any restrictions they want (outside fair use) on those copies.
Re:... (Score:2)
Re:... (Score:2)
The the extent that Mac and PC office are different products, so are the vinyl, cassette and CD releases of music. They all have different part numbers, upc numbers, etc...
The vinyl version of the white album is the version of the white album meant to be played on record players. The compact disc version of the album is the release meant for cd players. Just as the release of Office 97 is the release of office meant for PC's, where as Office 98 is the release of office meant to be ran on Macintoshes.
<I> While it's true we do pay a nominal fee for the replacement media, relative to the price of the software its trivial.</I>
I'm betting that your media cost is still higher than the cost of most music CD's, though... As much as a rip off music might seem to be, it's nothing compared to what most software companies get away with, yet there isn't nearly as much noise made about that anywhere.
Kudos and an anology... (Score:2)
To add an analogy to the mix, let's consider another of the IP Rights granted creators - Patents.
Now, avoiding the debate of application and longevity of Patents, and acknowledging that Patens are not exactly the same as Copyrights, consider the following:
Company Y has engineered a particular automobile, which compared to other cars produced, drastically lowers harmful emmissions. This is accomplished by use of their Propriatery Intellectual Property, which has of course been awarded the requisite Patent(s). They then begin mass-production and sales to drivers in Europe, with plans to sell them globally in the coming 2 years.
Now along comes Company T, another automobile manufacturer. It takes a "Y car" and duplicates the engine design for their "T car" and begins sales to North American drivers.
Although the "Y car" and the "T car" do not necessarily look the same, although they may. They are a violation of Company Y's Patents because they incorperate Company Y's IP in their design.
You, the driver of either the "Y car" or "T car" are not in violation of anything, as you simply bought the end product. You cannot, however, dismantle your car and rebuild it using the IP of Company Y without identifying that fact (ie: You cannot remove all of the serial numbers and identifiers from each component and replace them with something identifying you as the owner of the IP). If you think you can, I'd dare ya to sell a car with the VIN removed from all locations - you will be arrested on suspicion of Grand Theft Auto.
So what is the basic point of all of this?
Well, the "Y car" is not itself IP - it just contains IP. Just as a CD is not itself IP - it also just contains IP. The songs contained on the CD are IP. I cannot buy a CD from band ZYX and re-record the songs myself as band CBA - band ZYX will sue me for Copyright violations for trying to pass their songs off as written by me. Just as Company Y would sue Company T above for Patent Infringement for trying to pass off their engine design as being created by Company T.
In otherwords - it's the content - not the packaging that is IP.
So, what you are buying when you purchase that CD is the packaged product containing Copyrighted works. You are not purchasing the Copyright(s) to that work, nor are you purchasing the right to listen to that work. You are merely purchasing an Authorized copy of that protected IP.
This is why so many people, myself included, don't think that Napster is evil and trading/swapping/copying/whatever MP3's over the Internet is illegal. We are not taking the IP contained on our CD products and selling it as works of our own, nor are we selling unauthorized packaged products (CD, Tape, etc) containing that IP. We are simply doing what radio stations do when they broadcast the very same songs over open airwaves - we're freely allowing anyone who wishes to listen to that content to do so.
So, are you owed a CD of that vinal album? No, of course not. You bought the authorized package of those songs on a specific media. If you want it on another type of media, you need to buy the appropriate authorized package on the alternate format.
Are you free to create your own package of the material? Yes, as long as you do so under Fair Use provisions of Copyright law. You can create a tape containing songs from one or more CD's and listen to them in your car, or give them to your little brother/sister, or best friend. You can create an MP3 archive and give it to the same, and even post it on the Internet for anyone to listen to. You just can't charge for it. Once you make money off of someone elses IP, you have violated the intent(1) of the law.
(1) I use the term intent since these very laws are being rewritten to change this fact - however, the initial intent of IP law is as described.
Re:... (Score:2)
The problem with your analogy is that Mac Office and PC Office are seperate things. The original poster wasn't asking for a copy of Abbey Road, he wanted the same intellectual property that he had on vinyl on CD media.
The reality is that software vendors *will* sell you replacement media for things you "licensed." On more than one occasion we've gotten vendors to cough up new media when the media we had was no longer usable. While it's true we do pay a nominal fee for the replacement media, relative to the price of the software its trivial.
Like someone else said in this topic, this is all about making money for the record companies. There's no "fair" for the consumer. If they could make us pay for each song they would.
Re:Vinyl (Score:2)
I get sick of this kind of argument from the flim geeks over on AICN who think that because they own a 12 year old copy of Star Wars this somehow entitles them to buy bootleg copies of the Laserdiscs pressed onto DVD from Hong Kong.
Sorry! It doesn't work that way. Nor should it.
Pope
Freedom is Slavery! Ignorance is Strength! Monopolies offer Choice!
Missing the point though. (Score:2)
If you lost your old record... that's YOUR fault... their service is selling reproductions of music. Why should they charge you again? Because they are selling you something!
Now.. the real question is.. what if Johnny gives me a copy of his 2livecrew CD.. see, I bought it years ago too, but it got dropped in the lake. Is that fair? I mean, I did pay for it (this is like the beam-it situation)
The fact remains.. they did not sell me rights to reproduce the music. They sold me a recording.
Copyright Law (Score:2)
Here is a clue: Every objection or complaint that Slashdot readers have posted on this site was anticipated by the authors of the Constitution some 200+ years ago. These guys were REAL thinkers. These ideas have been tested time and again in both the courts and in commerce. Statutes governing Copyrights have been continually refined and updated to ensure fairness to both the author and end user.
If you want to see the careful balance in the law, READ the Constitution and the
case law [stanford.edu] that has come in front of the Supreme Court.
That isn't how it works. (Score:2)
Re:Copyright Law...is indeterminate (Score:2)
It may have been illegal under the DMCa iff this reverse engineering had been done somewhere under the scope of the DMCA. However it wasn't.
Re:What about your memory? (Score:2)
In the case of copyright subsitute "was" for "is". Any amount of balance has been destroyed by powerful (and mostly commerical) interests changing the law.
Re:You're missing the point entirely... (Score:2)
If they can have their cake and eat it then they will. Further if enough people point out that this is a problem they will probably lobby to get laws changed.
Re: Reduced cost (Score:2)
How much depreciation is reasonable on a copyrighted work, considering that it has a lifetime close to a century?
Re:The best things in life are free... but (Score:2)
Produce the album, a reciept for it or some other proof.
Re:What is it with you WHINERS?!!! (Score:2)
Except if you have bought 100 licences. It's not difficult to buy separate media and licences for software.
Re:Pay once, and pay less (Score:2)
"Non-profit" doesn't play into it at all.
Read the law: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/
Heads I win, tails you lose. (Score:2)
"But if you buy a series of bits from an online music site, it's obvious you only bought the right to listen to the music produced by the bits, so you have to pay again if you want to play them on another computer."
I mean, duh!
"Next thing you know, these open source types will start grumbling about this election thing in Florida, and come to some cockamamie conclusion like the current legal practice of 'fair is defined as that which scrapes up votes for our candidate and invalidates votes for our opponent' being a bad thing or something."
- smuggled tape of pillow talk between Hilary Rosen and Judge Kaplan, as taped by Jack Valenti
Re:Current system is right legally and morally (Score:2)
//rdj
Re:... (Score:2)
Not quite... The quality of the recordings are different and more than likey would have remixed it as well. The original recordings are probably on 1" master and a muititack format of some kind ( 1" 8 track or 2" 24 track?) I am by no means sticking up for the record companies but this argument will not hold true.
What you REALLY own (Score:2)
This is at the heart of the Napster controversy. People say, "Why pay again for something I already own?", when in fact they DON'T own what they think they do.
Using the software analogy, its like expecting to get a free Windows version of something just because you bought the Mac version, but you don't use your Mac anymore.
Your postulate is wrong (Score:2)
"This begs the question, when I buy an album, what am I buying. I don't own the music, I just own the right to listen to it,
None can control ones right to listen to something. Once the sound is in the air that sound is PD. (The right to perform is another matter and is limited, don't let that confuse you. Similarly the right to control the space something is performed in, such as the movie theatre charging admission.)
So if thats not what you bought, what did you nuy? The answer is inherent in the word COpyright. You bought ONE COPY of a given eprfromance. You have the right to own that copy, and listen to that copy (or eat it, if that turns you on.) Youy don't have the right o perform with that copy (unelss its a performance copy) which is why you can't play it over the internet for others.
Simialrly you don't own the right o make new copeis of that copy. HOWEVER the courts have recognized a limtied righ to make personal archives. So you can makew a copy for your own use. This means that you cantake that vynal albumn to a friend's house who has the right equiptment and cut a CD off it using a CD-ROm burner.
If you want the record company to do that for you, then yes, you have to pay for it like anyone else because youare buying a new copy from them.
Copyright is simple, really. People who don't WANT to udnerstand it tend to purposefully confuse themselves.
Copyright == Copy Right (Score:2)
Honestly the willful and purposful ignorance around here is enough to try a saint's patience.
Arguing by redefing the words is just fooling yourself.
Re:Purchase of media != right to listen (Score:2)
Clarification of original poster's second last paragraph:
You, as a free person, have the right to listen to and enjoy whatever content you damn well please. You simply don't have the right to resell or redistribute copies of content that belongs to someone else and is protected under copyright law.
You do, however, have the right to resell a CD or whatever you've bought to someone else, provided that you turn over to them or destroy all copies you've made of it. You also have the right to make copies for backup purposes, changing to a different type of media, and various other things covered under fair use.
Hmm... Actually, I don't think I've ever seen anything on that... Do you have the option of turning over any fair use copies you've made, or must you destroy them?
-RickHunter
Re:I think the main reason you can't upgrade... (Score:2)
I would disagree. I wanted a copy of a Carly Simon album which brings back fond childhood memories :-) and I borrowed my parents copy and made a CD using a good record deck, soundcard and CD burner. A month ago I bought the album on CD because I happened to see it discounted. Guess what? ...the CD I made sounds better - richer sound, deeper bass. My advice would be, if you own the vinyl and it's in good condition then get a friend with good equipment to make a CD for you.
Just to brag, last week someone gave me a boxed set of all the Beatles' albums on vinyl and I'm a very happy man...
ip is bs (Score:2)
this is simply another example of why the whole concept of IP is flawed. All of the sudden, instead of paying for a tangeable product, or someone's time, you're paying for the concept of music, or the concept of their ownership of that music. THAT IS SIMPLY BULLSHIT.
you want the white album on CD. yes, you should have to pay for the CD (the physical CD) and YES, the guy who made sure that CD was reproduced correctly should be compensated for his work through your purchase, but NO....paul mccartney, ringo star, george harrison, and yoko (and maybe Michael Jackso now) should NOT be compensated for that purchase. Sorry, but their rights to make money off that music ended when they stopped performing it.
"huh?"
how come i'm not still getting paid for the work i did at a video store 6 years ago?
FluX
After 16 years, MTV has finally completed its deevolution into the shiny things network
Re:Why buy it twice? (Score:2)
When you buy a song, you're buying the right to use a piece of intellectual property.
Well, at least I should be entitled to a discount equivalent to the value of all the patents and trademarks on the car. I agree to pay again for the materials, labor, energy, etc spent to build a car. But why should I pay twice for the intellectual property in the car design?
The content is what you pay for (Score:2)
If you bought the Beatles White Album you paid for all that, including the salary of the office-boy who brought burgers and soda to the engineers who stayed late to make sure it would come out on time. But you paid it because you liked the music. Or did you keep the 8x10s and threw away the record?
Here's how I would do it (Score:2)
Suppose the receipt had to state separately whatever the intellectual property was worth. If it was, for example: "$10 copyright, $2.99 recording, $12.99 total" - you should be able to buy a second CD for $2.99 if you could prove you had already paid for the intellectual property.
On the other hand, suppose the price was divided thus: "$2.99 copyright, $10 recording, $12.99 total". In this case, you could buy a CD and sell copies for whatever price you wanted, as long as you paid $2.99 to the recording company for each copy you sold.
In a perfect world, an artist should be able to sell his creation to anyone who wanted to buy it. Unfortunately, under the current legal structure, artists must sell their whole future to a recording company in order to have their creations known to the public.
What about your memory? (Score:2)
Is reciting a poem after you gave away the book a copyright infringement? Can you sing or hum a song after you gave away the record?
Re:What you REALLY own (Score:2)
That's not right. You own the physical media and the right to do anything the hell you want with that media, except for a few little things, like sell copies of the IP contained on that media.
You have the legal right to: sell the original media, play it whenever and wherever you want (except for hire), use it as a frisbee, etc.
---
You have the right... (Score:2)
You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford one, one will be appointed for you.
I'm sorry to say, I don't remember the rest of the Miranda's. I hope they survive the changes in the Supreme Court by the next administration. They survived on attack in the past year, already.
More on-topic, I fear you have the right to pay the [MP][RI]AA money for the least possible rights of media life or copyrighted content.
Digital signatures and CSS do nothing to prevent copying, in the bit-for-bit fashion. A bitwise copy will be playable on an authorized player, only the small-timers are kept out of piracy.
I fear the practical consequence of all of this is the slippery slope downhill into pay-per-[view][listen].
Copyright linked to media (Score:2)
My (limited) understanding of copyright is that the protection is provides is linked to the media. As I have been led to believe...
You bought the media. You own that copy. That's how it is with music, books, movies, newspapers, etc. There is the first sale doctrine which says that you own that copy and the copyright holder only had the exclusive rights to the first sale of that particular piece of media.
now I could be wrong (of course, IANAL), but from what I've read from many separate sources who seem to be the experts, is that what you're buying with music, books, movies is the media. You are buying one copy of the work, that you own.
Software seems strange, in that you agree to a restrictive contract. Most of the commercial licenses I've seen prohibit transfer to a third party, which would otherwise be your right if the first sale doctrine would apply.
I believe the only reason software vendors offer lower cost upgrades is that it fits the market and extracts the most money that the market will bear. I've not seen any reason that they must do this. Existing users have less incentive to switch to a competing product, and they get an incentive to upgrade when they very well may have just kept using the older version.
Just because the software vendors offer upgrades to existing customers doesn't set a requirement for the music or movie industries.
Re:It's not about content, it's money ... (Score:2)
Re:Pay once, and pay less (Score:2)
You've trimmed the quote and changed it's meaning. The full sentence is:
In other words, the list of purposes is a list of examples, not a limitive list. "including" is read by the courts as "including, but not limited to" and is treated in this instance as illustrative, not definitive.And it is further limited by several criteira: the purpose of the use, the nature of the work, the amount of the work (in relation to the whole) used, and the effect on the value of the work in its market.
Those criteria aren't further limits, in fact they're not limits at all. The classic 4 "fair use" factors are things that a court by law must consider when deciding whether a use is fair or not - however the word "include" pops up again, indicating that courts are free to use additional factors if they seem appropriate. These factors are balanced to decide if a particular use is fair. For example, a court is more likely to find that copying 50% of a book was a "fair use" if it was for an educational purpose, the work was not very creative, and the copying had no effect on the market, than if it was for a commercial purpose, was a really creative work, and the copies were competing in the market with the original work.
Re:Pay once, and pay less (Score:2)
That's absolutely wrong. Think about it! If this were true, copyright would have no effect at all. Books are as insecure as a radio broadcast; if this argument were true, a publisher selling a book would eliminate the book's copyright.
Re:Pay once, and pay less (Score:2)
No. The U.S. AHRA specifically allows digital audio copies, provided they're recorded on taxed media and on a device that implements "Serial Copy Management System". The AHRA only covers audio devices, and not general-purpose computers, BTW. You can read the law yourself at the U.S. Copyright Office [loc.gov]. (This is the major part of the AHRA, I think some minor bits of it are elsewhere in the U.S. code.)
Yes, the AHRA came into being because of the fears of DAT, and effectively killed it as a consumer format, but your analysis of how it did so is wrong.
Interesting to bring Microsoft into this (Score:2)
Can you imagine bands "open-sourcing" their pieces? Not only would we have access to every music sheet they write on, but they would be giving their "software" out for free. How would they make a living?
Maybe Bill Gates is right. Maybe software shouldn't be free. Open source is interesting as a hobby, but as a business model it seems fundamentally flawed.
On the other hand . . . (Score:2)
As a consumer, I'd love to pay lower prices for that material, but realistically you also wouldn't have much material to buy, since most of it would never get re-released.
Re:a record is more than a container for music. (Score:2)
Price of each cd: $.20
How much Britney gets: $1.50
How much the RIAA gets: $13.25
The smile on the RIAA's face, when you scratch your cd a week later and come back to buy another one... : Priceless
-since when did 'MTV' stand for Real World Television instead of MUSIC television?
Re:This is just silly. (Score:2)
No, it's not.
The Constitution grants Congress the authority to secure copyright and patent rights. This is entirely different than the Constitution granting those rights directly.
If Congress wanted to, they could eliminate copyright and patent rights entirely, and it would not be unconstitutional. Unlike freedom of speech, which cannot be revoked by Congress.
Re:You only own the atoms (Score:2)
Now I wish I hadn't already posted to this story--this really deserves to be upmodded. Well put, AC.
Re:Bingo! This has been one my my pet peeves FOREV (Score:2)
Well, guess what. You don't have to. It's a free country. In fact, you don't ever have to buy any music again if you don't want to.
Re:You are mistaking copyrights with EULAs (Score:2)
So what?
In a market economy, price is dictated by the forces of supply and demand.
I'm always amazed at the number of people who fail to understand this and believe that price should be based on supply only.
power I got the POWA! (Score:2)
each trend that would make companies do stuff and
stuff we tell them.
Like directors cuts - nobody was making them, until
some dude came up with brilliant idea to give
hardcore fans behind the scenes knowlege of the
movie making. Well since they attached full
version of a movie to the item they charge original
or more price for the item, seems logical from my
standpoint as business.
Now I am a customer, and I decide that they are
bunch of crooks, because they are selling to
me more than I want to buy for 5 fold the price.
So I can do:
1. Not buy the tape and advise so my friends any
one I know not to do it.
2. Buy it, because I can be allknowlegable about
the movie and there may gain better social
status.
Basically when enough people don't buy and complain
enough about this and that or are disgusted at
the practices of particular company, like
with Nestle and their milk thing, company will
get hurt and they will go into survival tactics
of mutation, if they are stupid they would sue
everybody. If not they will adapt to what customers
demand and survive.
Basically No you have no rights to make them do anything
directly, thats because you don't have enough
money to lobby against them, but you can build a
site advocating people not to buy any audio from
recording compnay. Make sure that everybody knows
what's important, and that is how you have power.
Distribute your knowlege/propoganda via internet,
and kick company's ass. I do that at my own site
do you? If all of us stop buying stuff from the
recording companies, they will be left with nothing.
So there.
Re:It's in the cost of [re]production... (Score:2)
The original Jimi Hendrix albums were all released on CD from the same source that the records were produced from. Several years ago, the record company (I think Jimi's family has control over his music now) digitally remastered the albums and released a second set of Jimi Hendrix albums.
Re:... (Score:2)
Those are called singles.
Re:It's in the cost of [re]production... (Score:2)
--
Re:But... (Score:2)
bm :)-~
the patent analogy is wrong (Score:2)
Video Games (Score:2)
Copyright Law...is indeterminate (Score:2)
The Constitution did not refer to drugs. Why do we have the War on Drugs today that throws billions of taxpayer dollars around so rapidly? Or even more visible is bans on certain types of assault weapons. Did the second amendment mention anything about that? Income taxes? The Constitution is NOT set in stone? Why? Because of various, sometimes poor misinterpretations of the Constituion. "Any means necessary" is also a broad term- it can be used to step on individual rights easily- and create the IRS.
You talk about careful balances in the law. Reading case law does not help me in any way. I'll use the example of Kaplan's ruling. Kaplan at one point stated that "To begin with, all or substantially all motion pictures available on DVD are available also on videotape. In consequence, anyone wishing to make lawful use of a particular movie may buy or rent a videotape, play it, and even copy all or part of it with readily available equipment"- Why? Because digital format provides more information. For goodness sakes, this does not in any way justify ruling against 2600.com et al. even for linking. Just using a different format and older equipment makes you legal under the law supposedly- and that's wrong.
In fact, the entire DeCSS ruling contradicts. If a person builds a photocopier- and photocopies somebody's entire book, he/she has created a new copy of the book in a different format. Is that legal? Or should we ban photocopiers because they make copies of copyrighted material just like DeCSS can make copies? If a perfect copier makes a perfect copy, is that also illegal? DeCSS is supposedly designed for this purpose- to let people copy their movies to their computers- and as long as they don't give the extra copy to somebody else, then they haven't done anything wrong. And if Kaplan wants to ban linking to the means to make such copies, we should also eliminate VCR manufacturers and Kinkos since they provide the means necessary to make illegal copies.
I'm also not saying that the entire ruling is wrong. I do agree that reverse engineering the Xing player is illegal under the DMCA- just that also is a bad interpretation of "fair use". Same goes for the whole idea of linking, its only equivalent to punishing somebody else for what you do along with yourself. Copyright law is a set of many rules that contradict- but some people accept them because they have been taught this way.
Another quick point about what Kaplan says- you can view copyrighted material only with licensed DVD players. This is of course a monopoly, and because its so profitable, why don't we ban Company X's VCRs just because they never even looked at a contract for royalties. Same goes for criminal acts of piracy for must we stop all potential abuse or nab the criminals themselves? If the writers of the Constitution were as smart as you say, then they had good reason to add the Second Amendment soon after. This is because we don't get rid of guns because they MIGHT be able to kill somebody, and instead we catch the crooks themselves when they abuse that right to hurt others.
And finally, your post mentions "ill-informed opinions". I just quoted your post- are you going to tell me I can't even use a single part of it even if I give credit to you? Same goes if I make a mp3, name it, and give it to someone else- but not the rest of the CD with it. If I take one part and still mention who made it maybe I then am fully within legal bounds. Face it- law is indeterminate. There is no set standards on anything.
At least opinions can give another perspective. Conforming and accepting does nothing. Some previous posters are right- companies do have a right to do all this, but it does not help us in this capitalistic society. Things that have been the way they are for so long should be changed anyway if they still fall outside the bounds of the Constitution. To stop getting shafted for that little extra packaging or extra movie scene, we must speak out and fight with wallets.
-------------
Don't assume- think
Ever hear of little band called Grateful Dead? (Score:3)
Those two bands are the best two examples of the "Jam Band" business model; tour a lot, play a differen show every night, let people record and trade the music; lather, rinse, repeat. There's a whole industry [jambase.com] of bands using this model [jambands.com] and some are quite successful.
Yes, these bands also sell albums which are not freely distributable, but it is clear that album sales are not a very large portion of their income at all and they subsist almost entirely on live performances. As Public Enemy's Chuck D has said, you can't download the actual artists.
Some bands using the "Jam Band" model also have had radio hits and became _very_ successful, including Dave Matthews Band and Blues Traveler.
Burris
What is a copy? (Score:3)
If you buy the record and want the "higher quality" version off CD, is it really the same IP / product? Or is it something different, different enough to be a new product you have to purchase separately? Personally, I don't know. I tend to think it is fair to acquire higher-quality version of what I lawfully bought, but I am biased by being a cheap bastard.
As for software upgrades, it's hard to argue that Win ME is really the same as, say, MS-DOS 3.3. Not so clear with Win98 and Win98 SE, but one could argue that what you really buy is whatever is differences. You're not paying twice for the duplicated parts; you're just getting shafted on the new stuff.
Would you argue that you shouldn't have to pay full price for a book that recaps its prequel? Did you cry foul at paying $18.95 for the Star Wars Special Edition tapes? Or are you just pissed because music and (some) software are too expensive? Well, sometimes capitalism sucks.
And just because you may have a legal right to a copy of something, doesn't mean the publishing company is obliged to provide it. Don't expect to make any progress demanding that Universal Studios release "just the director's commentary" for the Director's Cut version.
My mom is not a Karma whore!
I tried this on way back in 1983-ish (Score:3)
I tried this on at the local record store. The woman in the store gave me a look like I'd just asked her to fellate me right there and then in the store. She wasn't the brightest.
In any case, I figure even if someone got it in their heads to go bouncing through the courts and make it happen, we'd suddenly learn that the 'license to listen' component of the record/tape/cd amounts to a grand total of twenty-five cents.
Those record company execs would be up there swearing on their grandmother's grave: "Yes Your Honour, that's correct, it costs us twenty-four dollars and twenty-five cents to make those rec'ds y'r Honna. We keep twenty-five cents as our profit, take twenty-five cents in copyright licensing fees, and the retailers sells them for twenty-five dollars, keeping twenty-five cents for himself. That's not a lot of profit when you've got mouths to feed at home y'r Honna..."
competitive upgrades (Score:4)
a record is more than a container for music. (Score:4)
at first glance, i am inclined to agree with this letter, however it ignores a single major fact. if you own the beatles white album, you must have all those glossy 8x10s and the big lyric sheet. i think the cover is embossed.. the CD layout is different.
when i buy records,, i am interested in getting an equally creative lyric sheet or insert. i want innovative packing and presentation. when you look at records in this light, it complicates the issue. getting music on CD and LP is different because of that.. it's not simply a matter of the container's shape-- the container ITSELF is part of the product.
Per actual performance (Score:5)
Right now I'm rebuilding a guitar that I got for the purpose of making a dedicated 'metal' guitar- which is to say, I have various instruments tailored to get very specific 'sounds'. Many of them, this one included, have scalloped fretboards to suit my playing style. The upshot of it is this: these are tools to help me practice a particular skill at quality levels substantially beyond J. Random Highschooler.
Given that, the question is, do I try to get paid by copy of performance, or do I try to get paid 'for hire', for the time I spend actually doing the work? Well, the former is more of a 'win the lottery' scenario: currently it's really not feasible to expect to get paid this way- musicians _lose_ money in the industry, typically would get paid better flipping burgers because, as I have, they spend their own money on tools, promotion etc in efforts to hit that jackpot.
Instead of being the 'artist' in the 'star system' sense, I can choose to be the tool- and my income wouldn't have to be a lottery gamble. It could be straightforward income for hours of work put in- simple, effective. The line blurs somewhat- ever heard the name Marc Ribot? He played guitar for Tom Waits on the album 'Rain Dogs' and put in a startling, imaginative solo on the song 'Clap Hands' that stole the show from even sidemen like Keith Richards, who also played on the album. I don't know if Ribot gets royalties on that solo- the point is, work like this from Marc Ribot built him a career and he's legitimately able to ask for good wages should he choose to do more session work.
There are more artists needing the help of skilled musicians, engineers and producers than there are artists who will hit big enough for the royalties to be worth anything. That's always been the case. It's slightly different now with the rampant sampling and repackaging of everything- I just visited a friend who was playing a 'new' CD- a big 'greatest hits' collection of remastered Beatles. The engineers did in fact do a terrific job on that one- the tunes sounded very much like the original vinyl heard on a _really_ good system- but it raises the question of how many times will people listen to the same music over and over again before they get bored of it. I think there's a limit- ragtime and big band music are not chart toppers in this day and age, there's a half-life for musical taste despite the efforts of marketers to not come up with new content.
When new music is required, there will be that option- to be poor and try to wrestle the RIAA for rockstar wealth (and probably lose), or to get paid and then allow the RIAA to lose sleep over mp3s and whatever else comes down the pike. For me it's dead obvious- it is just not worth it to try and turn music into a mass market, get-rich-quick scheme. It's the execs and marketers who will win at that game- and they already own the entire catalogue of the Beatles, they aren't interested in me, or even in the 'next Beatles' whatever that might be. Novelty isn't profitable and never has been- formula is everything.
For anyone who feels that they can and should go up against the big media companies and try to get _wealth_ off their artistry: Cool ;) you do that. In fact, I will happily help out with a guitar solo if you like and you can keep the solo once I'm done with it! All for just $75 an hour (if you're an indie) or $7,500 an hour (if you're Britney Spears or some other manufactured star from the major labels).
Up front ;)
Then I'll have your money and _you_ can worry about becoming and staying rich off of volatile, zero-cost-copying, uncontainable, imaginary intellectual property. Lotsa luck :)
Purchase of media != right to listen (Score:5)
The purpose of copyright law is not so that the music industry can charge the public "listening fees" for music. The purpose of copyright law is so that only the owner of the copyright has the right to create new copies of the content. This way, people will purchase only copies of the content authorized by the owners of the content, and the owners of the content are protected from revenue generated by others copying and selling their work.
You, as a free person, have the right to listen to and enjoy whatever content you damn well please. You simply don't have the right to resell or redistribute copies of content that belongs to someone else and is protected under copyright law.
This strange idea that buying a piece of media "grants" one the right to enjoy its content is a very dangerous one. It is not the intent of copyright law, and its implications could lead to the world that many consumer advocates fear: one in which the right to play media that they have rightfully purchased is replaced with a "pay to play" rental system in which our personal freedoms are greatly limited.
--
"How many six year olds does it take to design software?"
... (Score:5)
Same goes for movies. You bought the regular version. No one is forcing your hand to buy the directors cut, that's a choice that you're making. You need responsibly weigh the merits of buying something you already own versus the benefits of seeing a couple editted out scenes or maybe some interviews. If you decide that $19.99 is cheap enough to justify the purchase, that's your decision.
I think software is the only industry that has an "upgrade" price as the defacto standard. Some car dealers will accept trade in's, while others won't. If you buy a refridgerator and a few years later the manufacturer updates the model with a differently shaped ice cube maker, you're not automatically entitled to that since you own the first version of the refridgerator.
Past that... Stick to your vinyl. Get a new record player and fight the disappearance of records... Plenty of bands still release on vinyl, and more probably would if they saw compelling reasons to do so...
Re:competitive upgrades (Score:5)
Actually, in a fair and equitable world, you'd just be shot.
If you were listening to NKOTB five years ago you might be able to justify upgrading to something, for example, musical, but anyone still listening to boy bands after five years isn't really deserving any consideration.
I think the main reason you can't upgrade... (Score:5)
The key point is that there is no easy way for the record company to verify that you own the Vinyl before they sell you the CD at a discount. It's also worth noting that, because record companies in particular are so inefficient, a big chunk of the cost of the CD is in manufacturing and distribution, so I don't know how much they really could cut the cost, anyhow.
In the specific case of Vinyl->CD (or VHS->DVD), there is a valid argument that you're buying something new; that the digital copy is significantly better than the analog. It is perfectly legal for you to make a CD from your Vinyl; you just don't want to because the quality would suck. Therefore, it is arguable that you don't own the CD version of The White Album
A better example is CD -> MP3. This is simply a media transfer. While the RIAA likes to imply that you do not have the right to do this, clearly, under copyright law, you do. The record companies would love to sell you all your music again, of course, and certainly, as a service, that might be something people would be interested in (although clearly not for the $3.50/song encrypted BS they're pusing, now).
I work for EMusic.com, and we've thought about this a lot, as you might imagine. Our opinion [emusic.com] is that you have the right to transfer formats and make copies all day long, as long as you don't share them with someone else. When you purchase a song from us, you've got the right to put a copy on your computer, a copy on your Nomad, a copy on your computer at work, and a copy on your car. There's no way you can listen to all those at once, so it's no big deal. What you're not allowed to do is share it.
Similarly, if you own a CD with a song we offer on it, it's perfectly OK for you to rip the MP3 from the CD and not buy it from us. Or, if you'd like, we'll sell you the MP3. For some people (especially our subscribers), that may be easier than ripping their collections.
Anyway, don't let the [MP|RI]AA snow you about your rights. You do have substantial purchase rights over the music you buy. The music industry (unlike the software industry, which you hold up as a paragon of virtue) does not have EULAs, or license agreements. When you buy an album, you still are getting something you retain rights to. Ditto with a movie. I agree that it'd be cool if they'd offer, for example, a suplemental DVD to go with your VHS old copy, for less than the whole DVD copy of a movie. But clearly the market for that would be small.
It's in the cost of [re]production... (Score:5)
Software is relatively simple to produce these days--even outdated stuff. Most folks don't keep it, though, because the stocks aren't in high demand.
It's not the same way with stuff in "old media"--to get something from vinyl to a digital format, it has to be recorded from analog, transferred to digital hardware, remastered to make sure it sounds close to the original, then transferred to the new format. That's why you used to see "DDD", "AAD", and "ADD" on the backs of CD's [and in some cases, you still do]. For the most part, new music is created and stored digitally, but that's not the case with your Buddy Holly LP's. =)
Which is better? Depends on the market. The market, to me, seems to dictate that the consumer is willing to bear the cost of the low-volume, high-cost production that converting A-->D runs. So it's nice free-market stuff.
Don't compare it to software the way the original poster does--new versions are upgrades, not ports. A port still costs money [or time-cost of money], though. This is a huge transferrence that requires one or more trained people to listen to.
--